On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 13:26 +0000, Sean Mooney wrote:
> On Tue, 2019-11-12 at 11:29 +0100, Sylvain Bauza wrote:
> > We discussed about a long known story
> > https://review.openstack.org/#/c/552924/
> >
> > The whole agreement during the PTG was to keep things simple with baby
> > steps :
> > - only supporting a few NUMA queries and defer others as unsupported (still
> > supported by legacy NUMATopologyFilter)
> > - The to-be-resurrected spec would be only focus on VCPU/PCPU/MEMORY_MB
> > resource classes and not handle PCI or GPU devices (ie. level-1 tree, no
> > children under the NUMA RPs)
> >
> > Agreement was also there for saying that functional tests should be enough
> > since PlacementFixture already works perfectly.
>
> we can now do numa testing in the gate so we can also add tempest testing this cycle.
> artom has recently gotten whitebox to run (more work to do https://review.opendev.org/#/c/691062/)
> and i do want to get my multi numa nfv testing job https://review.opendev.org/#/c/679656/ at least
> in experimental and perodic pipelines. i would like it to be in check eventually but baby steps.
>
> i dont think these should be a blocker for any of this work but i think we shoudl take advantage
> of them to contiue to improve the numa testing in gate.
by gate i ment ci/
Yup, I understood and we also discussed this possibility at the PTG. To be clear, that would be nice to get Tempest tests on a specific job that'd verify this, but this shouldn't be a blocker.
>
> >
> > -S
>
>